Rob Andrew disects England RWC 2015 performance (AKA Squeaky lambasts Bomber)

Rob Andrew has a new book to sell and details of the chapter on England's disastrous RWC 2015 campaign is in today's Telegraph.  A quote from this:

"It seemed to me that we froze: that the pressure was too great for those at the sharp end to bear. How else to explain the nonsense at the end of the Wales game, when we turned down a penalty shot that would have drawn the game in favour of a line-out call that was risky at best and spellbindingly dumb at worst? On this subject, I’m about as old school as it gets: in Test rugby, you take your points as and when they arise. Always. End of. Finish.

Instead, we were treated to a slow-motion car crash – a scrambling of the decision-making process, an unravelling of everything we had worked for since that Six Nations camp in Leeds in the cold early weeks of 2012. At that moment, our chances were dust. The valedictory capitulation against the Australians a week later was entirely predictable."

Amongst the revelations are the fact that England nearly signed Wayne Smith as coach; that Rob Andrew saw the recruitment and selection of Sam Burgess as a disaster; that Stuart Lancaster made mistake after mistake.

I don't think there is much there that hasn't been fully discussed, the question is should a former RFU director of professional rugby put the knife into a still working coach - is this a betrayal in the same vein as Sean O'Brien, or do we welcome open and honest feedback?  Rob Andrew has never been popular with 'the great unwashed', does this just cement the opinion?

Basically repeating what everyone already said 2 years later? Selection of Burgess wasn't a disaster, that's lazy analysis. He played fine and it was when he came off that we collapsed. Bigger issue was that Lancaster has no tactical ability or ability to use subs properly.

Agree Scott, and especially about Burgess, when he came off we lost the game.

Scottrf wrote:Basically repeating what everyone already said 2 years later? Selection of Burgess wasn't a disaster, that's lazy analysis. He played fine and it was when he came off that we collapsed.

It's that second point which shows up Lancaster's flawed thinking. One of the main reasons Lancaster selected Burgess, is that he thought he was a leader. He thought members of his England squad looked up to Burgess, and could be inspired by him. I'm sure, in training, that a lot of the players admired Burgess, but probably did so from a position of never expecting to see him named in the squad. It was almost like the inspirational guy who hands out the match-day shirts suddenly said he's putting one on instead, and one of you is staying behind.

Can't remember who made this point, perhaps someone from his League days, but one of Burgess' big attributes is that he would still function at the highest level when everyone was exhausted. His competitiveness never let up. On that basis, if Lancaster had chosen Burgess for his leadership abilities, then he should have left Burgess on, to rise to the challenge of seeing his team home in the final minutes of a high stakes match.

In short, he'd made a mistake bring Burgess in (because it disrupted the squad) but, having done so, he could have followed through by trusting the player.

The biggest disaster was selecting Lancaster, a very green and unproven coach, alongside a very green and unproven coaching team for such a high profile role.

And then after a season or two, when all the fans could begin to see the issues with the coaches, selections, tactics and lack of belief in the squad, no one in the RFU having the nuts to change anything.

Many other Int rugby sides have hired analysts, or else recruited extra experienced coaches to help their coaching team. England's failing was not doing this and just basically hoping it would all work out ok because, you know, culture.

Still think we lost that game because we didn't use the very good possession we got from our foward on the first 50 min not that inevitably wales came back into the game. The issue was less that Burgess started but that he started with barritt. With that I agree that wayne smith would have suggested we use the midfield to attack.it's all been done to death and I haven't ready any shocking revelations.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Basically repeating what everyone already said 2 years later? Selection of Burgess wasn't a disaster, that's lazy analysis. He played fine and it was when he came off that we collapsed.

It's that second point which shows up Lancaster's flawed thinking. One of the main reasons Lancaster selected Burgess, is that he thought he was a leader. He thought members of his England squad looked up to Burgess, and could be inspired by him. I'm sure, in training, that a lot of the players admired Burgess, but probably did so from a position of never expecting to see him named in the squad. It was almost like the inspirational guy who hands out the match-day shirts suddenly said he's putting one on instead, and one of you is staying behind.

Can't remember who made this point, perhaps someone from his League days, but one of Burgess' big attributes is that he would still function at the highest level when everyone was exhausted. His competitiveness never let up. On that basis, if Lancaster had chosen Burgess for his leadership abilities, then he should have left Burgess on, to rise to the challenge of seeing his team home in the final minutes of a high stakes match.

In short, he'd made a mistake bring Burgess in (because it disrupted the squad) but, having done so, he could have followed through by trusting the player.

This pretty much sums that up perfectly

If only there had been someone in the RFU during this time that could have done something about the senior set-up...

Rob Andrew has always had quite some talent for making himself unlikable.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Still think we lost that game because we didn't use the very good possession we got from our foward on the first 50 min not that inevitably wales came back into the game. The issue was less that Burgess started but that he started with barritt. With that I agree that wayne smith would have suggested we use the midfield to attack.it's all been done to death and I haven't ready any shocking revelations.

You could go back even further and say the mistake was made before then.

He should not have taken Burgess and Slade. Two of his four centres that were woefully inexperienced at test level, when he should have had Burrell to call on. That guy had been a key performer for England in the years running up to the world cup.

Once he had those 4 centres, and Joseph gets injured, he'd backed himself into a corner somewhat. does he really wan't to start Burgess and Slade in such a big game? Also, whilst Barritt had an uncharacteristically poor game, it's a reasonable call to want your most experienced centre in the team. After that it's just who you partner him with. He clearly didn't trust Slade (so why take him!?) so Burgess was the next step.

Very true.

cascough wrote:He should not have taken Burgess and Slade. Two of his four centres that were woefully inexperienced at test level, when he should have had Burrell to call on. That guy had been a key performer for England in the years running up to the world cup.

Burrell was playing terribly though.

Scottrf wrote:

cascough wrote:He should not have taken Burgess and Slade. Two of his four centres that were woefully inexperienced at test level, when he should have had Burrell to call on. That guy had been a key performer for England in the years running up to the world cup.

Burrell was playing terribly though.

I'd have still preferred a balance of form and experience. Since Lancaster didn't pick Slade until we were out, there was no point taking him.

Wasn't Slade injured?

I think the conditioning was poor. Certain players looked lethargic.

Jones has seemed to galvanise some players who were lacklustre under Lancaster.

Of course the bench is more dynamic too but it's not just that.

The pack has been given a rehaul by Jones.


Lancaster lost his job because of the RWC 2015 and Jones got the England job partly because of the RWC 2015......


Would Japan have beaten England? That's an interesting what if?

beshocked wrote:Wasn't Slade injured?

No.

Slade was busy with his duties as official touchline reporter.

It's a free country and you can buy things with money but I still think it's pretty unprofessional and certainly graceless to smack down a head coach that was selected during Andrews' tenure. Why say anything at all? Just you brush that dirt off your shoulder, Rob.

It's all been said above - regardless of the fact that it may not be your favourite, Lancaster should have chosen a midfield combination 2 years out, with 1 back up plus a utility man for each position and stuck to it. It's a horrible and inexplicable misunderstanding of a squad dynamic to bring someone in who barely has played in the code and then barf to the press that he's something of a saviour. Those other players had every right to ask why they deserved that treatment.

It's also unpleasant to see a head coach like SL just want to focus on coaching but yet get wheeled out in front of the bottom feeder sports press to try and sound neutral about England camp politics. I always felt he needed one of the Obama Anger Management Translators.

It's very well saying you should pick a midfield combination 2 years out, but not realistic. Tuilagi injured/banned, Burrell form up and down etc. How many different combinations did he have to play?

Lancaster wasn't able to pick a backline two years out. If you look at the injury list prior to his squad selections, I don't remember there ever being two series where he had the same backline available from one series to the next. He was constantly having to rejig based on form and fitness.

That doesn't excuse the big mistakes of RWC2015, but I think that picking Burgess was one of the least of them - and would have come off if he'd had the courage of his convictions.

Lancaster's biggest RWC2015 mistake was to try to reshape the pack to be lighter and more mobile - even that was the right idea in general, but he went too far, too fast and with not enough games for it to bed in. The second biggest, in my opinion, was dropping Ford but then playing Youngs rather than Care. The backline was big on bosh but short on creativity and Care would have gone some way to fixing that.

The big coaching he never solved was trying to use a bench to close games down rather than to change it up and win them. The Wales game was lost because he tried to defend a lead rather than increasing the pressure. Eddie changed that immediately - and his aggressive benches have won multiple matches.

Not sure eddie changed the bench thing immediately. Look back to the first wales game jones took charge of and the use of the bench. Very smiler feel to that game. The benefit comes is the core of the team are well set it's easier to introduce players when you have that. It comes down a bit to those injuries and disruption as well.

You have to look at the effect he's had on existing players too. What Vunipola says about when Jones told him he could be the best in the world, the improvement in Tom Wood (Jones said he was lazy and last year was maybe his best ever) and Courtney Lawes (lack of injuries helps too).

Never get the dislike for Lancaster, I thought that he did a very good job for England. They were in a bit of a poor state and he brought them around and got them playing some very good rugby. Jones pretty much inherited his side and took them 1 step further.

Lancaster was not the man for the future but he certainly did a great job in getting England to the point where they were ready to be taken to the next level.

As for the RWC, it was not a great time for England but Wales took their opportunity, its no real shock that a big team was going to go out of that group.

Cannot stand Rob Andrew and his hindsight. He is that person that never does anything himself, never makes any decisions but will comment on those that do. He claims a lot of credit for what others have done.

Cannot stand Rob Andrew and his hindsight. He is that person that never does anything himself, never makes any decisions but will comment on those that do. He claims a lot of credit for what others have done.

Spot on - I find Andrew an obnoxious toad for that very reason

I can't stomach Rob Andrew. He is a horrible little ring piece of a man.

Where were his criticisms when England turned over NZ or Wales in the Millenium stadium or Ireland in the Aviva?

To come out and say I wanted the other guy, doesn't speak volumes for him. If he as director of rugby couldn't sign Wayne Smith and he had to settle for Lancaster (who is not a bad coach) who's fault is it?

Eddie Jones didn't change much when he arrived and went on that outstanding unbeaten run, he built upon the foundations Lancaster had laid.

The RWC was a disaster, but I personally have never seen that sort of pressure before, and the levels of expectation coming from the English rugby press and some corners of the fans was bordering on hysterical. The pressure that he and the players were under told in the end, and England's coaching staff and the players buckled under that expectation. Lancaster made mistakes, but he certainly wouldn't have coached Robshaw to kick for the corner instead of taking the valuable 3 points in their decisive match with Wales.

eirebilly wrote:Never get the dislike for Lancaster, I thought that he did a very good job for England. They were in a bit of a poor state and he brought them around and got them playing some very good rugby. Jones pretty much inherited his side and took them 1 step further.

Lancaster was not the man for the future but he certainly did a great job in getting England to the point where they were ready to be taken to the next level.

As for the RWC, it was not a great time for England but Wales took their opportunity, its no real shock that a big team was going to go out of that group.

Cannot stand Rob Andrew and his hindsight. He is that person that never does anything himself, never makes any decisions but will comment on those that do. He claims a lot of credit for what others have done.

eirebilly you think that because you are not an England fan.

Lancaster lost most of the big games.

He also didn't take England forwards after the 2012 season, England stayed stuck there.

Jones has made more progress than Lancaster.

Hosts going out of their own world cup without making the quarter finals is embarrassing. Especially for a country like England which has vast resources and finances compared to other countries.

England going out was a big shock, a big disappointment, the main positive was getting rid of Lancaster but still....


ruggerradge I've been critical of Lancaster ever since he failed to turn England into GS winners.

Gave him his year's grace in 2012 which he performed pretty well - the problem is 2013-2015, there was no noticeable progress/improvement.

It wasn't a shock at all as we were in a group with Australia and Wales. 2 very good teams. Disappointing but a bit of perspective needed.

Lancaster quotes come from the tory graph

Andrew’s comments came as a surprise to Lancaster, who said on Monday night: “Everybody’s entitled to an opinion, Rob has given his and that’s his right. You learn a lot about yourself as a national team coach and you learn a lot about other people as well. I didn’t see this coming, I wasn’t aware that anything was being written.

“When you take the responsibility, you’re accountable when it doesn’t go well. I think I did that from the start and I will continue to do that. I coached over 50 international games which I think puts me second-most or around there. You go through good times, you have great wins and great moments. You go through tough times as well. I’ve got my thoughts [on the Sam Burgess saga] and I’ll keep them to myself for the time being. I don’t think it will do anyone any good by going back all over that now.”

Lancaster would not be drawn as to whether it was unbecoming of Andrew, a long-standing associate at Twickenham, to go public with his thoughts. “It’s not for me to comment on whether it’s the wrong thing to do,” said Lancaster. “I was unaware it was coming up. People are motivated in different ways. He was in the [RFU] organisation and I joined the organisation in my original role with the academy in 2007. We worked alongside each other, is the best way to describe it.”

no 7 & 1/2 we know you'll always be a fan of Lancaster.

Have certain expectations when you have the wealthiest rugby union, 12 AP clubs, a successful U20s side for the last few years.....

England had the resources to do better than going out of the pool stages of their own RWC.

Wales were very much beatable - it's why the tri nations have done it 2/28 with Gatland in charge. Even Lancaster himself beat Wales twice, admittedly losing 3 times...

Those 3 losses all were big big losses though - 1st one cost England the GS, 2nd cost England the 6 nations title, 3rd cost Lancaster his job.....

And as for you saying 2016 was the same - no, England won.

Fine margins but that was Lancaster's big problem.


Oh and Lancaster never admitted he ballsed up vs France 2014 either.

Read Bomber's response, so spineless, explains why he failed as he doesnt have an ounce of fight in him and even when attacked he turns the other cheek. Can you imagine Eggie doing that?!

There's subtleties in there beshocked. It can hardly be a shock to lose to teams like Australia and Wales. It's disappointing we went out but hardly an irregular result. It's not an embarrassment. There are clearly shades of grey in the world but I know you like absolutes. Since jones took us backwards last year (I assume in your eyes as he didn't get a gs) would you want him gone if he doesn't get a clean sweep in 2018?
I hink we could well get another gs but I wouldn't describe losing to anyone bar italy as a shock.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It wasn't a shock at all as we were in a group with Australia and Wales. 2 very good teams. Disappointing but a bit of perspective needed.

Lancaster quotes come from the tory graph

Andrew’s comments came as a surprise to Lancaster, who said on Monday night: “Everybody’s entitled to an opinion, Rob has given his and that’s his right. You learn a lot about yourself as a national team coach and you learn a lot about other people as well. I didn’t see this coming, I wasn’t aware that anything was being written.

“When you take the responsibility, you’re accountable when it doesn’t go well. I think I did that from the start and I will continue to do that. I coached over 50 international games which I think puts me second-most or around there. You go through good times, you have great wins and great moments. You go through tough times as well. I’ve got my thoughts [on the Sam Burgess saga] and I’ll keep them to myself for the time being. I don’t think it will do anyone any good by going back all over that now.”

Lancaster would not be drawn as to whether it was unbecoming of Andrew, a long-standing associate at Twickenham, to go public with his thoughts. “It’s not for me to comment on whether it’s the wrong thing to do,” said Lancaster. “I was unaware it was coming up. People are motivated in different ways. He was in the [RFU] organisation and I joined the organisation in my original role with the academy in 2007. We worked alongside each other, is the best way to describe it.”

Not a shock....oh that's too funny....not a shock in your own RWC not to get out of your group, you even sound like Bomber with his passive response to everything.

Get behind the lads because they're good lads YAWN.

Hey if you rate that Welsh team that lowly it's up to you. I'd say you're wrong.

Gwlad well said.

You shouldn't accept poor performances either. It's why I've said many times you should get rid of Gatland and Howley. Wales can be better too.



no 7 & 1/2 I am not saying Wales were bad, I am just saying they were very much beatable and at home in your own RWC you expect to win. Especially as England were leading at half time too.

It is an embarrassment.

Just as losing to Iceland in the football was an embarrassment too.


Oh and let's not even talk about Wales having a patchwork backline in the 2nd half of the game.

As cliched as it is Wales wanted the win more.

beshocked wrote:Gwlad well said.

You shouldn't accept poor performances either. It's why I've said many times you should get rid of Gatland and Howley. Wales can be better too.



no 7 & 1/2 I am not saying Wales were bad, I am just saying they were very much beatable and at home in your own RWC you expect to win. Especially as England were leading at half time too.

It is an embarrassment.

Just as losing to Iceland in the football was an embarrassment too.


Oh and let's not even talk about Wales having a patchwork backline in the 2nd half of the game.

As cliched as it is Wales wanted the win more.

Howley asap

Gats after RWC with Dai Young to come in fingers crossed

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I can't stomach Rob Andrew. He is a horrible little ring piece of a man.

Where were his criticisms when England turned over NZ or Wales in the Millenium stadium or Ireland in the Aviva?

To come out and say I wanted the other guy, doesn't speak volumes for him. If he as director of rugby couldn't sign Wayne Smith and he had to settle for Lancaster (who is not a bad coach) who's fault is it?

Eddie Jones didn't change much when he arrived and went on that outstanding unbeaten run, he built upon the foundations Lancaster had laid.

The RWC was a disaster, but I personally have never seen that sort of pressure before, and the levels of expectation coming from the English rugby press and some corners of the fans was bordering on hysterical. The pressure that he and the players were under told in the end, and England's coaching staff and the players buckled under that expectation. Lancaster made mistakes, but he certainly wouldn't have coached Robshaw to kick for the corner instead of taking the valuable 3 points in their decisive match with Wales.

Teflon Andrew.

The timing of the article is unsurprising given he has a book to sell. Pretty much every sporting article about in-fighting from years gone by is followed immediately by a ghost written autobiography containing as much insight about sport as a McDonald's advert does about it's burgers.

The nature of him implying that every poor decision happened at a point when the director of the RFU couldn't have changed the outcome is indicative of the man.

You swing too much. I do think Lancaster made a mistake in the world cup as I said at the time and since. A move away from using the backs and more back to grinding it out. And your seem to agree that Wales and Australia were both very good teams and that's he reason I don't see it as a shock or an embarrassment. I hink you give too little credit. And yes I'd accept that Wales coped much better with their injuries than we did.

No I think Wales were a limited side just like England and neither reached their potential in the RWC.

Most of the NH sides in the RWC performed quite poorly.

Australia had a good RWC but have gone backwards since, England have gone forwards, Wales have stayed still.

England still have some changes to be made but hopefully they'll happen in time.


Grinding it out could have worked if England's conditioning was up to standard and the bench.

It was a shock and embarrassment.

Yet you acknowledge that England weren't streets ahead. Just think your terminology is wrong there.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yet you acknowledge that England weren't streets ahead. Just think your terminology is wrong there.

You must be shocked

Two of Rob Andrew's team mates have defended him, in different ways.

Brian Moore says he's quite happy to see Rob Andrew getting abuse but thinks he's mostly on solid ground with his statements. Moore says a lot of the flack he's taking now is from people who don't properly understand what Andrew's role actually was.

Carling goes further, and points out that Andrew opposed some of the actions of the RFU for which he gets blamed (e.g. sudden sacking of Brian Ashton; appointment of Martin Johnson). However, he concedes Andrew isn't held in high regard by much of the rugby public, and doesn't think this kind of coverage will help.

Carling's views are on Twitter, where he challenged journalist Brendan Gallagher, who has been quite scathing about Andrew. Gallagher thinks Andrew is evading responsibility. because he had a senior RFU role, and should have been actively intervening if he thought there were problems. Carling intimates Andrew did what he could behind the scenes but had been frozen out of the senior England set-up after Johnson left.

Both Carling and Moore wonder why Andrew alone is seen as responsible for Lancaster's full-time appointment when four others were on the panel, and much of the rugby press and public wanted him retained.

Carling also pushes back against the idea that the England team was in dissarray after the 2011 World Cup. He thinks that was vastly overplayed, saying the Cup performances were a let-down after the better showing in 2010/11 but not the total shambles that people like Clive Woodward claimed.

I'll be fascinated to read Andrew's take, so it would be hypocritical of me to think he should keep quiet. The rugby public has an image of Andrew as a meek teacher's pet type, whereas he's actually a blunt, hard-nosed northerner, with the rough edges given a smooth polish, by a private education and Cambridge. It'll be interesting to see whether that side of his character becomes more apparent.

For all that the Telegraph led with his views on the end of Lancaster's tenure, I suspect the book will have more criticisms of Martyn Thomas. Clive Woodward may not come out too well either.

Its because Andrew had nice thighs - ask your missus -and is the guy we all love to hate.

RA was just on the Today programme. Same corporate bluster. Ultimately the accusation that he looked after No1 will remain.

My understanding following the post WC review was that Farrell was the controlling influence and Lancaster was more accommodating!
Andrews statements about Bomber are that he was in a kind of dictatorial position - so a bit conflicting with the review.
Mistakes were made - we all know that. I personally felt that Andrew should have left the RFU a lot sooner than he did - and yes, a lot of people didn't understand what his role in the RFU was - I am not convinced he did either (beyond chairing the club vs country disputes).
There were other issues - Eddie recently said that when he took over he was really surprised by the EPS fitness levels - again, that's something I personally was really surprised about.

Andrew had a quick appearance on Brian Moore's podcast. Sounds like the main thread in his book is about the state of professional rugby in England, and he has some concerns.

He was involved with the recent club-country deal, and said he can already see trouble brewing, because there are clauses in it which relate to the structure of the season, which is now in flux.

He's not impressed that the club game is still losing money despite having seen a big increase in turnover through TV money and the RFU payments. We'll have to wait for the book to find out who he blames, and whether he has any solutions. He's on record as saying that it's too late for central contracts.

beshocked wrote:

Grinding it out could have worked if England's conditioning was up to standard and the bench.

It was a shock and embarrassment.

But I thought at the time they were known to be the fittest team - didn't they used to take teams to the "kill zone"?

I think one of the biggest things to come out of this for me has been the fitness level of the players.
It seems that we were appalling unfit compared to the best in the world. How on earth can that be. That's basics and the first thing Eddie Jones fixed - one which I suspect has gone a long way to the results hes been getting.

Exactly GF - thought their fitness was supposed to be right up there. Now they weren't shouting about it like the Welsh camp and all the cryogenic tubs and all that - But I had thought that they were all considered to be in peak conditioning.
Unless that's just another thing that management got wrong in the run up to the WC - too many games or over-conditioning!

propdavid_london wrote:Exactly GF - thought their fitness was supposed to be right up there.  Now they weren't shouting about it like the Welsh camp and all the cryogenic tubs and all that - But I had thought that they were all considered to be in peak conditioning.  
Unless that's just another thing that management got wrong in the run up to the WC - too many games or over-conditioning!

It may just have been aerobic fitness. Tom Wood commented in the run up to the World Cup that he had never done so much running. Perhaps in the loose open games we were fitter and did manage to outlast the opposition. I can remember post game, against Wales, plenty commenting on how knackered Wales looked and how spritely the England players looked at the end. But to be honest, I don't remember the game itself. Maybe the games where we struggled for fitness were games where the opposition had managed to make us make lots of tackles, or scrum and maul. I really don't know.

Eddie Jones has made a big thing about intensity in his training sessions. Short and intense. Different kind of fitness perhaps? I dunno.

I am sure we have all met people like Andrew in our careers. Thank God I am now retired.

cascough wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:Exactly GF - thought their fitness was supposed to be right up there.  Now they weren't shouting about it like the Welsh camp and all the cryogenic tubs and all that - But I had thought that they were all considered to be in peak conditioning.  
Unless that's just another thing that management got wrong in the run up to the WC - too many games or over-conditioning!

It may just have been aerobic fitness. Tom Wood commented in the run up to the World Cup that he had never done so much running. Perhaps in the loose open games we were fitter and did manage to outlast the opposition. I can remember post game, against Wales, plenty commenting on how knackered Wales looked and how spritely the England players looked at the end. But to be honest, I don't remember the game itself. Maybe the games where we struggled for fitness were games where the opposition had managed to make us make lots of tackles, or scrum and maul. I really don't know.

Eddie Jones has made a big thing about intensity in his training sessions. Short and intense. Different kind of fitness perhaps? I dunno.

Just copying Gatland

Journalist, who has read the whole book, says on The Times rugby podcast that Andrew generally writes approvingly of Lancaster except for the way he handled the job in the run-up to the World Cup.

Asked if it is worth reading, he said yes, because the bulk of the book is about the growing pains of professional rugby in England (it doesn't cover Squeaky's playing days). He was interested in the section on negotiating the first club abd country deal. Tom Walkinshaw is not portrayed too kindly, apparently. He's dead, of course, so can't answer back.

cascough wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:Exactly GF - thought their fitness was supposed to be right up there.  Now they weren't shouting about it like the Welsh camp and all the cryogenic tubs and all that - But I had thought that they were all considered to be in peak conditioning.  
Unless that's just another thing that management got wrong in the run up to the WC - too many games or over-conditioning!

It may just have been aerobic fitness. Tom Wood commented in the run up to the World Cup that he had never done so much running. Perhaps in the loose open games we were fitter and did manage to outlast the opposition. I can remember post game, against Wales, plenty commenting on how knackered Wales looked and how spritely the England players looked at the end. But to be honest, I don't remember the game itself. Maybe the games where we struggled for fitness were games where the opposition had managed to make us make lots of tackles, or scrum and maul. I really don't know.

Eddie Jones has made a big thing about intensity in his training sessions. Short and intense. Different kind of fitness perhaps? I dunno.

Just going by what I saw, it looked like all the players had lost weight for the RWC, Wood in particular looked lean, which isn't something you really want from your forwards in particular. I read they'd done a heck of a lot of cardio, and they did seem very aerobically fit every game, but across Bombers tenure we lost the power game to most other top teams.